Menu
Tactic: Review a context/ directory — sort material into ARA types, locate and align the north-star, and produce a feeding plan for the compiler
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Strategy: Attack an isomorphism claim by demanding an explicit structure-preserving map and trying to break it. Targets any multi-language claim of the form 'X ≅ Y ≅ … across N mathematical languages'. Forces the claim to either earn the word 'isomorphism' or be demoted to 'analogy'. Methods: category theory (functor/natural-iso criteria), model theory, Lakatos monster-barring.
Strategy: Dialectic engine retuned for truth-seeking, not survival. A defender steelmans a claim into its MOST falsifiable form, a critic attacks to refute it, a judge classifies the exchange into BROKEN/CORROBORATED/UNFALSIFIABLE — the judge does NOT pick a winner or score persuasiveness. Methods: Irving debate (repurposed), Toulmin argumentation, Mayo severe testing.
Strategy: Run BEFORE building any validator (sandbox/simulation/benchmark). Builds a non-circularity matrix of theory-claim × validator-assumption to detect when a validator would 'confirm' a theory only because it was built on the theory's own premises. A circular validator's PASS carries zero evidential weight. Methods: Cartwright nomological machines, Winsberg sanctioning-of-simulations, tautology detection.
Strategy: Attack a beautiful unified result on the suspicion that its beauty is the bug. Distinguishes EARNED simplicity (forbids/predicts/subsumes) from DECORATIVE simplicity (re-describes/relabels/accommodates). Directly serves the Occam aesthetic by making it a falsifiable bar, not a vibe. Methods: Sober parsimony-as-evidence, MDL, Meehl risky prediction, accommodation-vs-prediction.
Campaign: Truth-seeking adversarial validation for scientific research artifacts (NOT publication defense). Core question: Where have we fooled ourselves, and is each load-bearing claim even falsifiable? Win-condition is INVERTED from survival/resilience to active refutation. Methods: Popper falsificationism, Lakatos Proofs and Refutations, Mayo severe testing, Platt strong inference.
Strategy: Attack the evidential weight of an 'independent convergence' claim. When N reasoning paths all reach the same conclusion, the confidence boost is real only if the paths were actually independent. Measures shared-prior / shared-blindspot contamination and corrects the over-counted confidence. Methods: Bayesian agreement-as-evidence, correlated-error analysis, jury theorem assumptions.
| name | context-review |
| description | Tactic: Review a context/ directory — sort material into ARA types, locate and align the north-star, and produce a feeding plan for the compiler |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | ara-from-context |
| type | tactic |
| campaign | ara-from-context |
| sops | ["context-exploring","north-star-align"] |
| dependencies | {"sops":["context-exploring","north-star-align"]} |
Key question: 这批 context 里,生成 ARA 最重要的素材是什么?大方向和用户对齐了吗?
Skill load context-exploring —— 读 INDEX → 整目录分三类素材(报告线/过程线/
图片)→ 聚 arc 候选 → 定位 north-star 文件 → 草拟投喂计划。Skill load north-star-align —— 深读 north-star → 提炼大方向 → 复用
present-candidates/present-and-ask 与用户对齐 → 回填投喂计划的大方向 + arc 范围。① 对齐过的大方向 ② 完整投喂计划(主干文件 / trace 素材 / 图片清单 / arc 范围 /
大方向),交给 compile-and-review。
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use |
|---|---|
| context-exploring | SOP: Read context/INDEX.md and sort the whole directory into three ARA material types (report line, process line, images), locate the north-star file, and draft a feeding plan for the ARA compiler |
| north-star-align | SOP: Deep-read the original north-star context, distill this ARA's overall direction, and align it with the user via the reused present-and-ask / present-candidates dialogue SOPs |